I can't believe i didn't see something about mandatory helmet laws in the bicycle article posted from 1893 - surely that must have been a huge future issue back then, along with super bike batteries and coin operated dynamos.....

vitualis wrote: It took me quite a while to get used to the heavy single speed bike from the hotel with only a coaster brake but the entire experience felt very safe.

this might be sacrilegious, but that worries me. i've been to amsterdam as well and from the bits i remember, everyone cycles around very casually and slowly on their heavy bikes. i think there's an assumption by many bike enthusiasts that this is some sort of nirvana, while i'm more uncertain. it's arguably incompatible with the 'lycra clad' view of cycling, which allows for higher speeds and the pursuit of fitness (while commuting).

i commute on the Capital City Trail. i dread to think what it would be like, flooded with amsterdam-type bikes. ok, obviously you would expect facitilies to improve, but i am already annoyed by the existing crop of "i'm on a bike, i'll ride at my own speed, through red lights, turn without looking" brigade. do we really want more of them? think carefully

Wel then these cyclist need to change their vieuws then.

I do commute in normal clothing, and may not reach average speed of 30 on my commute, or even 25 for that matter.but does that make me less of a cyclist?offcourse not.

jules21 wrote: the existing crop of "i'm on a bike, i'll ride at my own speed, through red lights, turn without looking" brigade. do we really want more of them? think carefully

Mmmm, you are not stereotyping here are you??

There are cyclist that are doing the wrong thing, and those who do the right thing.not all 'amsterdam' style bikes do that.I see all sorts of people doing wrong things , some are even 'lycra clad'.

I unnderstand that these slow riders are causing an inconvienience for you, just as much as you causes inconvienience to cars.Just because you ride a bike faster then someone else, doesn't mean you can't share the road with others.Because that is what car drivers think...

but I would say yes to these riders, the more the better.i am more then willing to share to road with everybody.

The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!

jules21 wrote: the existing crop of "i'm on a bike, i'll ride at my own speed, through red lights, turn without looking" brigade. do we really want more of them? think carefully

Mmmm, you are not stereotyping here are you??

There are cyclist that are doing the wrong thing, and those who do the right thing.not all 'amsterdam' style bikes do that.I see all sorts of people doing wrong things , some are even 'lycra clad'.

I see a fair share of lycra-clad 'roadies on a mission', training-commute riders blowing through red lights. That sort of behaviour is certainly not dress or speed dependent.

People break rules in cars, people break rules on foot, people break rules on road bikes, people break rules on slow commuter bikes. I think it's more about a mentality that "I'm more important than everyone else so I can.....".

But as for more cyclists? Yes, we do want more on the roads, even the silly ones, who need more educating by their fellow rider's displays of correct riding.

Helmet theory cracked by new study16 August 2010. The theory that helmet laws stop people riding bikes has been contradicted in a new study by Canadian health researchers.

By studying the rate of helmet use in various provinces, some of which had no helmet laws, and some of which had introduced helmet laws in the study period, the researchers found that helmet legislation made no difference to the numbers of people riding bikes.

The conclusion was a surprise to many international cycling advocates, who have long believed that helmet laws resulted in fewer people riding.

Major cycling bodies, such as the European Cycling Federation and the CTC, the UK's bike organisation, have campaigned against helmets laws because they said they discouraged people from riding.

The new study,"The effects of provincial bicycle helmet legislation on helmet use and bicycle ridership in Canada", was conducted by four health academics, steered by Jessica Dennis, of McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa. The study was peer reviewed and published in the Journal of Injury Prevention.

The study reported that between 1994 and 2004, 44,577 hospitalisations occurred due to cycling incidents in Canada, representing 2% of all hospitalised injuries. Twenty-four per cent of these hospitalisations were due to head injuries.

A meta-analysis of five case-control studies of cyclists seen in emergency departments found that helmets significantly reduced the risk of head, brain, and severe brain injuries by 63-88% among cyclists of all ages.

The risk reduction was similar whether or not the crashes involved cars, or had other causes.

The release of the study comes at a time when there have again been calls for the repeal of Victoria's helmet legislation, amid claims that the rules are stopping the use of Melbourne BikeShare.

Bicycle Victoria has long monitored attitudes to helmet wearing and has concluded that it has become normalized in Victoria, where the rates of Helmet wearing are extremely high -- and significantly higher than Canadian provinces with helmet laws.

Helmets are accepted as a part of everyday riding and the proportion of riders who object to helmets is now tiny.

It appears the main argument against mandatory helmet laws appears to be 'I want CHOICE'.

While the undying support of libertarianism seems quite honourable, perhaps they can take their fight against 'the man' to another 'worthy' cause. The continued whining about helmets only creates noise and distraction to the detriment of REAL cycling issues.

mikedufty wrote:I may have missed it, but is there any mention in this thread of any political parties/candidates with an anti compulsory helmets policy?Is it even a federal election issue, or are the helmet laws state based?

I forgot the parties name (it has the word Liberal in it but it is not the Liberal party) but they are against mandatory helmet laws. I didn't read about how they want to repeal them since they are a state issue but for interest they are also against:* current speed limits (they are too low)* compulsory seat belt laws* internet censorship* criminalisation of of "victimless crimes" such as Riding a motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet or BASE jumping from city buildingsamongst other things that it is not appropriate to mention on a public forum

I see some of the same people calling for mandatory helmet laws also calling for speed limits to be reduced. We shouldn't have mandatory helmet laws because in wonderful Europe (an apparent nirvana for cyclists) they don't have mandatory helmet laws. Well, in Europe they don't have such uniformly restrictive speeding laws either... * On French autoroutes there is a variable speed limit: in dry weather 130 km/h; when raining, 110 km/h. * Italian autostradas have a 130 km/h speed limit, with 110 km/h limits on curvy roads and in rainy conditions and 150 km/h limits on newer and straighter roads. * German autobahns have no speed limits in general, although there is a recommended limit of 130 km/h. Blanket speed limits apply for trucks, buses, and cars pulling trailers. Due to high oil prices, more and more people drive "slowly" (~150km/h) in order to save money on petrol. * Swiss motorways are limited to 120 km/h. * In the UK the limit on motorways is currently 112 km/h. However, the opposition Conservative Party is proposing to raise the limit to 130 km/h where appropriate. * The highest speed limit in the world is 160 km/h, on a selected test stretch of autobahn in Austria and in the United Arab Emirates.

So if we want to follow wonderful Europe we should be calling for some speed limits to be increased, not decreased.

casual_cyclist wrote:So if we want to follow wonderful Europe we should be calling for some speed limits to be increased, not decreased.

Yes, and people who believe that Europe's lack of helmet laws should be emulated here also must believe that French should be the national language of Australia, rather than English. J'espÃ¨re que vous plaisantez.

Helmet theory cracked by new study16 August 2010. The theory that helmet laws stop people riding bikes has been contradicted in a new study by Canadian health researchers.

By studying the rate of helmet use in various provinces, some of which had no helmet laws, and some of which had introduced helmet laws in the study period, the researchers found that helmet legislation made no difference to the numbers of people riding bikes.

The conclusion was a surprise to many international cycling advocates, who have long believed that helmet laws resulted in fewer people riding.

Major cycling bodies, such as the European Cycling Federation and the CTC, the UK's bike organisation, have campaigned against helmets laws because they said they discouraged people from riding.

The new study,"The effects of provincial bicycle helmet legislation on helmet use and bicycle ridership in Canada", was conducted by four health academics, steered by Jessica Dennis, of McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa. The study was peer reviewed and published in the Journal of Injury Prevention.

The study reported that between 1994 and 2004, 44,577 hospitalisations occurred due to cycling incidents in Canada, representing 2% of all hospitalised injuries. Twenty-four per cent of these hospitalisations were due to head injuries.

A meta-analysis of five case-control studies of cyclists seen in emergency departments found that helmets significantly reduced the risk of head, brain, and severe brain injuries by 63-88% among cyclists of all ages.

The risk reduction was similar whether or not the crashes involved cars, or had other causes.

The release of the study comes at a time when there have again been calls for the repeal of Victoria's helmet legislation, amid claims that the rules are stopping the use of Melbourne BikeShare.

Bicycle Victoria has long monitored attitudes to helmet wearing and has concluded that it has become normalized in Victoria, where the rates of Helmet wearing are extremely high -- and significantly higher than Canadian provinces with helmet laws.

Helmets are accepted as a part of everyday riding and the proportion of riders who object to helmets is now tiny.

blundershot wrote:I guess I see the biggest issue facing cycling is how do we end the division between US and THEM and have society embrace cycling, funding of facilities, sharing of road space, etc, etc...

Yeah... Good luck doing that without first increasing cycling numbers.

This infighting on a forum of cycling enthusiasts is frankly a little bit sad. I can help but feel that many posters on this thread fail to see to forest from the trees in terms of the larger policy issues and goals.

Whether bicycle helmets should be optional or compulsory is in itself, a minor issue apart from perhaps those with a libertarian conception of rights. Contrary to a recent comment, the reasons why helmet laws should (IMHO) be repealed have little to do with "individual choice".

For the large cities in Australia, particularly Sydney, the question we should ask is this: what vision should we pursue for transport infrastructure in the future? It should be perfectly clear that the reliance on cars as the primary mode of personal transport is terribly inefficient. We do not necessarily need to project future consequences. There are dozens of international examples that we can opt to emulate or follow.

My feeling is that we should promote cycling as a valid if not preferred choice for short trips and commutes around cities. If this is the broad policy goal, then achieving this requires looking at what barriers are in place.

Did the introduction of compulsory helmet laws lead to a drop in cycling rates? Most analysts would say "probably" but it is true that there were other confounding factors in the historical studies. Arguing about this point, however, is entirely unproductive. We can say for certain that compulsory helmets laws definitely do not promote the uptake of cycling. Even if they did not lead (in themselves) to a historical drop in cycling rates, there are good and obvious first principle reasons why compulsory helmet laws are a barrier to promoting the widespread adoption of cycling. Paris is a good example; the free and automated bicycle hire system has been extremely successful and is widely used by the local Parisians. The consequence is that many people have decided to buy their own bicycles rather than rely on the potentially problematic free bikes. The Paris style bicycle hire system can not exist if bicycle helmets were a compulsory condition of cycling.

The question of the necessity of bicycle helmets should be examined. As I have written before, it is very probable that bicycle helmets do reduce the risk of severe head injury in the case of an accident. This shouldn't be debated or questioned. What should be asked is whether this benefit is worthwhile. Are helmets necessary for all modes of cycling to make it safe? It should be obvious that there are many places in Europe where cycling is substantially safer (insofar as deaths/injuries per kilometre ridden) than in Australia even without the use of helmets. This tells us that it is not just helmets in themselves that lead to safety. Moreover, overturning compulsory helmet laws does not forbid an individual to use a helmet if they choose. You can choose for yourself and your children whether you want the added benefit a helmet provides.

There are frankly better debates that we as cycling enthusiasts can engage in. If the longer term vision is cycling as a primary form of transportation for short trips in cities, then there are many other barriers that need to be overcome, many that require greater political will: e.g., widespread dedicated cycling infrastructure, promotion of other forms of public transport, enact laws that give cyclists primacy/right of way in city roads, etc.

How can we say 'for certain that compulsory helmets laws definitely do not promote the uptake of cycling'? I see no evidence at all... (except for perhaps a few hard core right-libertarians who may feel it impinges their rights)

just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I cant post my position... I know this forum is stacked with 'like minded' thinkers.. I have copped a lot abuse in PM and in threads today (abusive posts modified and deleted by mods, thanks) for offering a different view and am surprised a mod feels like joining in...I guess its why a lot of people only visit here once in a while (no one I chat to online and cycles in Perth comes here...)..I think its time I left this space for you lot

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.